(This post has been placed out of order.) It is not a matter of whether or not you "like" these creations of Moore's, not because your feelings are unimportant but because it is not possible to discuss those feelings meaningfully. Perhaps you are familiar with a famous Latin maxim: De gustibus non est disputandum,…

Whether it's one or two days almost doesn't matter, the accumulation of events seems highly unlikely. Even today in Paris you have to give yourself one hour and a half to get anywhere. Why do you suppose Moore feels the need to compress time this way?

We are, by definition, judging Moore's success or failure in his version of "Outlander," which you claim should NOT be judged by its faithfulness (or variances) from the novels. Whether or not Gabaldon succeeds is a different topic altogether.

You want to say that Moore's "Outlander" is entirely a separate thing from Gabaldon's and should not be judged by how well he adapted her novel. OK. Then he COULD introduce some women—even one woman—like Claire, even if Gabaldon doesn't, right? You can't have it both ways.

Who is Madame Elise?

You want to say that Moore's "Outlander" is entirely a separate thing from Gabaldon's and should not be judged by how well he adapted her novel. OK. Then he COULD have introduced some women like Claire even if Gabaldon didn't, right? You can't have it both ways.

Gabaldon's Louise may not have a profession, but she befriends Claire, and Claire follows her lead in figuring out how to navigate French society. Mary Hawkins certainly grows in Gabaldon's "Dragonfly in Amber," and she sticks like glue to Claire even when she is horrified by what goes on at L'hôpital des Anges.

(This reply seems out of order.) Am I correct in thinking that you believe Moore's series and Gabaldon's book are completely separate works of art? That would mean he has to succeed or fail on his own merits, at least on this point (and perhaps others), right?

There can be just ONE likable, married, competent woman whom Claire encounters in Moore's Paris, can't there?

Agreed about Criminal Minds. What do you think of the spin-off?

Forgive this relatively spoiler-free intrusion: Fergus does not die.

Well, of course more brothels. Moore has not yet exhausted Ripley's "Believe It or Not."

Keep your shape, no matter what happens to The Dresden Files.

We can quibble for days about terms like "equal," but my point is that no other women in Moore's Paris are invested in a profession (except prostitution), in a marriage, and in a cause. Why is that?

I do not ask for a Claire clone. I would just like to see one other woman in Moore's "Outlander" Season 2 who is likable, who seems to like men genuinely (apart from the prostitutes), who likes children, who cares for other women, who is an expert, who takes risks as Claire does. I'm sure they existed in…

High fiving you on the reference to Anonymous 4 recordings and anything else they have recorded! It is possible that in her companion books to the novels, Gabaldon discusses whether or not she meant her eighteenth-century Mother Hildegard to be what we might call a shout-out to Hildegard of Bingen. I discovered the…

Let's see. At this reserve, I think the fate of the series is entirely up to Hirst.

Thank you for your response. We agree about the time-traveler status setting Claire apart. [SPOILER: In the novels, Gabaldon hints that Geillis herself might be in Paris at this time and that Master Raymond himself is a time-traveler.]

It is unclear in Moore's "Outlander," so far. PR suggests Jamie does cheat in future episodes, but perhaps only to drum up viewership. [SPOILER: In Gabaldon's version, he does not succumb even though the "little dogs" in these establishments bite him on the thigh, etc. In the novels, Jamie and Claire have a…

Agreed about "Game of Thrones," which I watch while multitasking but not with any consistency.